Category: Science

The Politics of Weather

Posted on Comments

One of the horrors of 21st-century America — a harbinger of creeping totalitarianism — is that everything is becoming political.

Sex is political. Food is political. School is political. And, thanks to the global warming scare, even the weather is now political. Except we don’t even call it “weather” anymore. Now it’s called “climate.”

Silly as they seem, these word games are always significant. Until about 1970, for example, people talked about “outdoors” or “nature.” Once the elite started calling it “the environment,” however, you knew it had become political. It was the same way with sex. People used to talk about “homosexuals.” Once the elite decided to use “gay” instead (as random as this choice may have seemed), it was political.

The change of language from “weather” to “climate” is intended to impress and awe us with the authority of Science. Whereas mere weather is something that anyone can talk about — it’s cool, overcast and windy today — you have to be a scientist to talk about climate. And anyone who doesn’t endorse the Scientific Consensus about global warming is marginalized and demonized as being anti-science.

Dr. Heidi Cullen (and don’t you dare omit that authoritative “doctor” in front of her name, you science-hating sexist) once suggested that “meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of man-made catastrophic global warming,” Becca J. Lower reminds us, in explaining how Doctor Cullen smuggled politics into the Philippines typhoon story.

 

Cultural Marxism and the (Very Real) Movement to Normalize Pedophilia

Posted on Comments

“Childlike innocence is an invention of the bourgeoisie of early capitalism.”
— Olaf Stüben, German pedophile activist, 1981

Anyone who has followed the arguments surrounding the case of Florida sex offender Kaitlyn Hunt knows how her supporters in the so-called “Free Kate” movement have justified Hunt’s crimes against a 14-year-old girl. You are a bigoted hater, say the Free Kate crowd, if you think the parents of a 14-year-old have a right to prevent their daughter’s corruption by a tattoo-covered dildo-wielding she-hooligan.

“But it was consensual! They were in love!
It’s normal! It’s harmless! Everybody does it!”

Every parent — no, every decent human being — who heard those rationalizations must have strained to resist the urge to grab a shotgun and hunt down the twisted freaks who make such excuses.

Why do you think they call it “jailbait”?

It’s very simple: Age-of-consent laws empower parents to protect their own children, and the fact that some parents don’t give a damn whether their kids are screwing around (hello, Kelley Hunt Smith) cannot be used to argue for a “right” to have sex with minors.

Must the citizens of Indian River County  let a pack of wretched white trash like the Hunt family set the moral standards of their community? Is Florida soon to be infamous as the Teen Sex State, where every child becomes “fair game” as soon as they start high school?

Happy 14th Birthday! (Batteries not included.)

Disagree with these sex-crazed perverts and you will be accused of “vengeance, spite, fear, denial, sadness, insanity, whatever.”

These bizarre accusations should not only offend us because they are false, but intelligent citizens should be alarmed at the cultural shift that makes these creeps unashamed to defend perversion by such twisted logic, presuming to lecture decent law-abiding people this way.

However, nothing should outrage and offend you more than the knowledge that there has been (and still is) a relentless political movement to normalize sex with minors, a fact that left-wing activists in Germany are just now being forced to admit:

[I]n the 1970s and 80s, numerous gay-oriented magazines brazenly promoted sex with children, even running pictures of naked boys. The magazine “Don” presented five sympathetic reports on the experiences of pedophilic men. The headline read, “We’re not child rapists!”
In recent months, many in Germany have been discussing the extent to which the Green Party in the 1980s allowed itself to be manipulated by pedophiles. The party came under such intense pressure that it hired political scientist Franz Walter to look into its own history relating to the issue.
Yet it’s now clear that the gay movement in Germany must also come to terms with this chapter of its history. Anyone who searches through archives can find ample evidence of the alliance between gay rights organizations and pedophile activists. If pedophiles got into trouble with the law, they could rely on legal advice from a group called “Gay Lawyers.” Many politicians in the Green Party also made sure that calls for legalizing sex with children had an audience. . . .
[M]any gays didn’t want to be the ones to judge others for their deviant sexual inclinations. In a climate of general tolerance, the movement lost its moral compass. The gay movement did not distance itself from men who acted on their desire for children; rather, it took them under its wing.
Then there was the remarkable idea that underage boys should not be denied the chance to have sexual experiences with grown men. Even today, the Association of Lesbians and Gays in Germany (LSVD) claims on its website that in the 1980s, the only men who spoke up were those who had enjoyed sex with adults in their youth.
For the pedophiles, the alliance with the gay movement was nothing but beneficial. They had a platform from which they could formulate objectives.
The gay movement helped pedophiles in entirely practical ways. In the pamphlet “Justly gay. Legal advice for gays,” there is a one-and-a-half page “argumentation aid.” It’s an instruction on how men who are charged with child sexual abuse can best escape punishment.

To emphasize, in case you missed the key passages:

“The gay movement did not distance itself
from men who acted on their desire for children;
rather, it took them under its wing. . . . The gay movement
helped pedophiles in entirely practical ways.”

You can read the whole thing, which reveals a sordid history that the gay rights movement — and the Left, in general, both in Europe and America — have attempted to suppress by angrily denouncing as “bigots” and “witch hunters” anyone who dares to mention it.

It is not bigotry, it is not hysteria or witch-hunting or homophobia, to state the plain facts, nor should we be afraid to point out that there are still many people — including university professors and authors published by prestigious journals — who are attempting to undermine resistance to their agenda of having sex with minors.

Furthermore, we need not be silent about which side of the political spectrum tolerates and defends these intellectual perverts, chiefly by their silence about the existence of the academic pedophile movement, but also by stigmatizing those who warn against it.

In January, when Rush Limbaugh described the “movement to normalize pedophilia,” he was mocked by liberals for saying so, but we are now being overwhelmed with a tsunami of new evidence of the shameless persistence of this shameful deviant movement:

A childhood education conference to take place next weekend at the University of Toronto will feature keynote speaker Dr. James Kincaid, a Professor of English at the University of Southern California who has been criticized as being highly sympathetic to pedophiles.
The conference titled “Bodies at Play: Sexuality, Childhood and Classroom Life” is sponsored by the Mark S. Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies under the auspices of the University of Toronto’s Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE). . . .
Kincaid is an American academic whose studies into the sexualization of children have led him to the conclusion that all adults are secretly sexually attracted to children but use revulsion at the actions of overt pedophiles to hide their inner feelings. . . .
He believes society condemns pedophilia in order to maintain its moral posturing, while living through child molesters vicariously.
“So, what about the way we talk about child-loving? The talk is monster-talk, first of all, talk that is busy rejecting the pedophile,” Kincaid wrote. . . .
Dr. Charles McVety of the Institute for Canadian Values has written an open letter to Chris Alexander, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, asking that Kincaid be denied entry into the country. . . .
“On behalf of the 125,000 members of the Institute for Canadian Values and Canada Family Action, we request that the Minister refuse admission of Dr. James Kincaid to Canada for a lecture on October 19th, 2013 in Toronto,” Dr. McVety wrote.
“Dr. Kincaid is a well-known advocate for pedophilia, a criminal activity in Canada,” the letter states. “His work has been roundly condemned by the New York Times, The Daily Mail, several British Members of Parliament, and Michael Hames of Scotland Yard.”

It’s another read-the-whole-incredible-thing article. We shake our heads in disbelief that someone like James Kincaid even exists, much less that this unapologetic academic advocate for perversity should be employed by the University of Southern California:

Professor Kincaid researches critical theory, American Studies and Queer studies. Before coming to USC in 1987, he taught at Ohio State, Berkeley, and Colorado. Kincaid’s earlier work in Victorian literature and culture and in literary theory has yielded to publication in cultural studies, most recently in the history and current cultural practices of eroticizing children and instituting elaborate scapegoating rituals to disguise what we are doing. He regularly teaches classes in criminality/lunacy/perversion, in age studies, in censorship, and in other areas of literary, political, and cultural studies.

Oh, “critical theory,” also known as cultural Marxism. But if you call it by its right name, you’ll be called a paranoid right-wing conspiracy theorist. And in this world turned upside down, where facts are “hate” and truth is “extremist,” how much further down the the slippery slope will we slide before it’s illegal even to criticize it?

We’ve already slouched past Gomorrah and are halfway to Sodom. We are so close to the gates of Hell you can feel the heat, smell the sulfurous stench of burning brimstone, and hear the Devil call your name.

Satan roams the Earth, the Evil Rights Movement gains new supporters daily, and it may already be a crime to call evil by its right name.

“I have filed over a hundred lawsuits and another one will be no sweat for me. On the other hand, it will cost you a lot of time and money . . .”
— Brett Kimberlin to Patrick Frey, Oct. 11. 2011

You’re not praying hard enough.

 

BomberSuesBloggers.com

 




 

The Death of a Freak: Euthanasia for Belgium’s Botched Sex-Change ‘Monster’

Posted on Comments

What depths of self-hatred could lead someone to this?

Nathan, born Nancy, Verhelst, 44, was given legal euthanasia, most likely by lethal injection, on the grounds of “unbearable psychological suffering” on Monday afternoon. . . .
“I was the girl that nobody wanted,” Mr Verhelst told Het Laatste Nieuws newspaper in the hours before her death. . . .
Mr Verhelst had hormone therapy in 2009, followed by a mastectomy and surgery to construct a penis in 2012. But “none of these operations worked as desired”.
“I was ready to celebrate my new birth,” he told the newspaper. “But when I looked in the mirror, I was disgusted with myself. My new breasts did not match my expectations and my new penis had symptoms of rejection. I do not want to be… a monster.”
The case will revive Belgium’s debate over medical euthanasia as statistics show a steep year on year increase in the number of patients killed by doctors after a request to die.

The distance between one’s desires and one’s reality can most easily be shortened by accepting reality. The alternative of pursuing hopelessly unrealistic desires is likely to end unhappily.

(Via Mememorandum, which has further blog commentary by Moonbattery, Weasel Zippers and VodkaPundit.)

 

The Non-Existent Moral Code of Atheism

Posted on Comments

If there is no God, there is only Science and, as everyone who has studied the “climate change” phenomenon is aware, Science involves a self-selecting cabal of credentialed insiders empowered to dismiss criticism from anyone who does not concur in the sacred consensus.

So child molestation is harmless — the Science is settled!

Richard Dawkins, one of the world’s best-known and outspoken atheists, has provoked outrage among child protection agencies and experts after suggesting that recent child abuse scandals have been overblown.
In an interview in The Times magazine on Saturday (Sept. 7), Dawkins, 72, he said he was unable to condemn what he called “the mild pedophilia” he experienced at an English school when he was a child in the 1950s.
Referring to his early days at a boarding school in Salisbury, he recalled how one of the (unnamed) masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts.”
He said other children in his school peer group had been molested by the same teacher but concluded: “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.” . . .
“I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,” he said.
He said the most notorious cases of pedophilia involve rape and even murder and should not be bracketed with what he called “just mild touching up.”

Ace of Spades:

This just in: Man who has spent entire adult public life attempting a Freudian vengeance against God-As-Father-Figure-Betrayer announces that a bit of “mild pedophilia” did “no lasting harm” to his psychology.

See more at Salon, Memeorandum and Gateway Pundit — but you know, who has been warning you about this? Who took alarm over the Kaitlyn Hunt story? Who told you about the atheist sex scandal?

Who told you about the Pervert Party and the New Abnormal? What about Slutwalk Insanity and the Psychotic Professor?

Does anyone else see a pattern here? Perhaps the apostles of the Gospel of Science could examine these correlations, and confirm my impression that there is a distinct non-randomness involved.

Did I ever mention that Brett Kimberlin is an atheist?

 

Divorced Woman Becomes Victim of Patriarchal Oppression and Biology …

Posted on Comments

. . . but, yeah, mainly it’s the biology:

[A] 38-year-old woman . . . is a client of Ronald G. Lieberman, a family law attorney in Haddonfield, N.J. Mr. Lieberman is asking his client’s soon-to-be-former husband of eight years to pay $20,000 to cover her egg-freezing procedure, medication costs and several years of egg storage. “When they got married, the expectation was they would start a family,” he told me. “Now she might not have the chance much longer.” . . .
In the New Jersey couple’s case, they decided to divorce after undergoing several failed attempts at in vitro fertilization. Mr. Lieberman’s argument is that since fertility treatments were part of the marriage, they should be considered part of the marital lifestyle, which should be maintained as much as possible post-divorce. The only difference is, in the future, she’ll use another man’s sperm.

Ann Althouse:

It’s not just a matter of a man taking up the best fertility years of a woman’s life and somehow owing her the nearest thing to giving back her youth.

Professor Althouse, “the best fertility years of a woman’s life,” from a strictly scientific view, are ages 18-24. After age 27, fertility begins to decline and, in your 30s, that decline accelerates. So by the time Lieberman’s client married at 30, she was past her prime.

Of course, most healthy women can get pregnant at age 30, but the problem is that many sexually active women are not actually in good reproductive health, often as a result of damage to their fallopian tubes caused by sexually transmitted infections:

Chlamydia infection is the most common sexually transmitted disease, responsible for a record 1.1 million cases reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2007, and experts there estimate that twice that many cases go undetected. Left untreated, chlamydia can cause infertility or potentially fatal ectopic pregnancies. But many women aren’t even aware that they were exposed to it—possibly years ago — until they try to have a baby and can’t. . . .
Chlamydia is especially prevalent among women ages 15 to 19 and African-Americans, but sample studies have found the infection in nearly 10% of all female Army recruits, 10% of female college freshmen and 14% of women in managed-care plans. . . .
[E]ven when a woman no longer tests positive for an active infection, the chlamydia bacteria may have moved into her upper genital tract and set off pelvic inflammatory disease. PID can cause pelvic pain—or it can be asymptomatic—but it often leaves inflammation and scar tissue that blocks a woman’s fallopian tubes, preventing fertilization. PID is also the most common cause of ectopic pregnancy, which can be fatal. “It’s not the infection itself but the body’s response to get rid of the bacteria that causes the scarring,” says Dr. Toth. “And even if just some fragments of the bacteria remain, the immune system thinks an active infection is still present.”

At least one in 10 sexually active young women are infected with this disease that can effectively destroy her reproductive system and, as with all such diseases, the greater your number of partners — and the greater the number of your partners’ partners — the greater your risk of infection. Many women are ill-informed about the reality of this and other infertilty risks because of political correctness.

In 2001, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine decided to run a public awareness campaign with ads that stated plainly, “Advancing Age Decreases Your Ability to Have Children.” This is simply a fact — the science is settled — but because it contradicts feminist ideology, the NSRM ads were controversial:

Cindy O’Keefe, 28, who is single and wants to have kids, had a visceral reaction to the ad. “That’s pressuring women in their 20s and 30s to conceive,” she said, shouting over the lounge music at a trendy New York City bar. “That’s sick!”

Seattle Weekly reported that “women’s advocacy groups” denounced the “alarmist ads,” but since when are scientific facts “alarmist”? And isn’t a little factually-informed alarmism preferable to an ignorant indifference that results in desperate 30-something women shelling out tens of thousands of dollars for fertility treatments that, alas, often ultimately prove futile? I wrote about this issue a couple of years ago:

Postponing marriage until you are 30, and then imagining that you have plenty of time to wait around deciding when you want to become a mother, is not a natural way of thinking. To a greater extent than Rachel Birnbaum or her young readers may understand, this way of thinking is an artifact — or perhaps we might call it a side-effect — of the Contraceptive Culture, which fosters the belief that the procreative process is infinitely subject to human control. Yet while it is true that childbirth can always be prevented, by contraception or abortion, the logical obverse is not equally true: Pregnancy and childbirth cannot be magically conjured up in compliance to human will.

People really need to wake the hell up. The real world is not infinitely malleable, and biology does not conform to ideology.

 

 


An American Crisis: Fat Lesbians

Posted on Comments

Why are lesbians fat? Or, why are fat women lesbians? Is correlation causation? This profound scientific mystery demands an answer, and you can’t have science without a federal research grant:

The federal government has spent $2.2 million studying why three quarters of lesbians are obese despite sequestration-mandated budget cuts that critics warned could “delay progress in medical breakthroughs.”
The National Institutes of Health awarded an additional $682,873 to Brigham and Women’s Hospital for the study on July 17. The project had received previous grants of $778,622 in 2011, and $741,378 in 2012. Total funding has reached $2,202,873.
The project has survived budget cuts due to sequestration, which the NIH warned would “delay progress in medical breakthroughs.” . . .
“Obesity is one of the most critical public health issues affecting the U.S. today,” the grant’s “public health relevance” statement reads. . . .
“It is now well-established that women of minority sexual orientation are disproportionately affected by the obesity epidemic, with nearly three-quarters of adult lesbians overweight or obese, compared to half of heterosexual women,” the project’s abstract states. “In stark contrast, among men, heterosexual males have nearly double the risk of obesity compared to gay males.”

Wait a minute — both lesbians and heterosexual males have obesity issues, compared to either straight women or gay men?

EXPOSURE TO VAGINA CAUSES OBESITY!

The science is settled. That will be $2.2 million, please.



 

 

UPDATE: Dana Pico notes that “majority sexual orientation” is now the official designation, which means that terms like “heterosexual” and “straight” will probably soon be classified as hateful epithets and anti-majority slurs. Of course, I’ve always thought of myself as suffering from hyperphallic vaginocentrism, but I just checked the mailbox and my disability payment still hasn’t arrived.

Oh, the horrible stigma and discrimination . . .

 

‘Science Falsely So Called’: How Can You Prove Your Innocence, Professor Krauss?

Posted on Comments

Professor Lawrence Krauss on Australian TV, February 2013.

“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.”
— I Timothy 6:20-21 (KJV)

“Jeffrey Epstein is the infamous media mogul who was jailed in 2008 for paying underage prostitutes who said they were recruited by his aides. . . .
“One of the friends defending Epstein is none other than Professor Lawrence Krauss . . . he’s invoking the name of science to do it.”
— Rebecca Watson

“When women come to me to warn me about what speakers to avoid at conferences or confide in me sexual harassment they’ve experienced, Lawrence Krauss is by far the most common name I hear.”
— Jen McCreight

“One is almost tempted to pray that God might have mercy on these poor fellows, but why should we trouble scientific types with our primitive superstitions?”
— Robert Stacy McCain, “No Love for the Godless”

Have you ever heard of Lawrence Krauss? I had not, but then again, I’d never heard of Ben Radford until Karen Stollznow accused him of being a sexual “predator.” Frankly, I’ve paid no attention to the New Atheist movement that has flourished in the past decade or so.

The “profane and vain babblings” of these people are tedious. My attitude toward all such people has always been, “OK, we get it. You’re a scientific super-genius, and Christians are all idiots for believing the Bible, and you’re going to write another article ‘proving’ how much smarter you are than everybody else. Thanks.”

However knowledgeable and articulate the god-haters are, their logic is always backward. They begin with the conclusion that there is no God, then hunt around for “evidence” to prove the negative. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Roman 1:22).

“Science is based on telling the truth, which is a really important ethical boundary. It’s one that I don’t think religion shares, in fact. . . . I think that science can offer a better world.”
— Lawrence Krauss

God proves His existence by the truth of His word, and we see prophecy fulfilled every day when we behold the fate of arrogant fools.

Lawrence Krauss is a 59-year-old professor at Arizona State University whose curriculum vitae runs to 32 pages. The nature of academic tenure is such that nothing in the world could get him fired from his job. Lawrence Krauss is invulnerable — absolutely bulletproof — and so when atheist blogger Jen McCreight had the temerity to repeat what she said women told her about Krauss’s behavior, she had to delete those stories because Krauss tried to intimidate her:

Well, Famous Skeptic is vaguely threatening to sue me. Since Famous Skeptic is rich and I am poor, and since my two sources are too terrified to openly speak out again him (I wonder why), I have removed the part of my previous post that refers to him so I don’t go bankrupt with legal fees.

Such a tactic may seem rather familiar to regular readers of this blog. “Science is based on telling the truth,” Professor Krauss tells us, and if these women are lying about him, perhaps he can prove their accusations false, just as he claims to prove God does not exist.

Philosophy majors or attorneys may see that Professor Krauss has been presented with a more difficult problem than he imagines. If the case comes down to testimony and evidence, Jen McCreight’s sources may have less reason to be “terrified” than does Krauss.

Perhaps my good friend Herman Cain could explain to the professor how hard it is for a man to prove his innocence in these cases.

For years, however, it seems the terroristic intimidation of atheist women has kept them silent, as Rebecca Watson says:

I’ve heard of several other “big name” skeptics who loudly argue online against any and all anti-harassment measures who are known for actually sexually harassing women in the meatspace. I’m hesitant to name them for legal reasons . . .

But there is strength in numbers, and if it is true that Professor Krauss’s behavior has long been the subject of private complaints, then the current climate of public accusations — the Floodgate Effect, we might call it — has suddenly shifted the balance of terror. Every man in the atheist movement who has ever told an off-color joke in mixed company is a vulnerable target now, and Professor Krauss has the context of his own public record to deal with:

“Jeffrey [Epstein] has surrounded himself with beautiful women and young women but they’re not as young as the ones that were claimed. As a scientist I always judge things on empirical evidence and he always has women ages 19 to 23 around him, but I’ve never seen anything else, so as a scientist, my presumption is that whatever the problems were I would believe him over other people. . . . I don’t feel tarnished in any way by my relationship with Jeffrey; I feel raised by it.”

Professor Krauss defending a convicted sex offender? Professor Krauss defending Jeffrey Espstein, billionaire pedophile?

Victims alleged that Epstein molested underage girls from South America, Europe, and the former Soviet republics, including three 12-year-old girls brought over from France as a birthday gift.

Certainly, Professor Krauss’s friendship with a pedophile sex offender cannot be considered relevant evidence as to whether Professor Krauss mistreated women who attended atheist events, but when the shadow of suspicion looms over a man accused of harassment, the relevance of evidence has a strange way of eluding strict rules of logic.

Lawrence Krauss and Michael Shermer celebrate their
victory, after debating against the existence of God.

Let’s talk about Professor Krauss’s good friend Michael Shermer:

At a conference, Mr. Shermer coerced me into a position where I could not consent, and then had sex with me. . . . I am very scared that he will come after me in some way. . . . I reached out to one organization that was involved in the event at which I was raped, and they refused to take my concerns seriously. Ever since, I’ve heard stories about him doing things . . .

Well, guilt by association is a terribly unfair thing, but if Michael Shermer is a rapist, and Jeffrey Epstein is a pedophile, one must ask if Professor Krauss has any friends who are not sex offenders. And if he habitually associates himself with such perverts, what does this tell us about his claims to “judge things on empirical evidence”? Or is the problem that all atheist men are lecherous creeps?

Professor Krauss is a man so brilliant that he believes he can prove that the universe is an accident created from nothing, by nothing:

A critic might reasonably question the arguments for a divine first cause of the cosmos. But to ask “What caused God?” misses the whole reason classical philosophers thought his existence necessary in the first place. So when physicist Lawrence Krauss begins his new book by suggesting that to ask “Who created the creator?” suffices to dispatch traditional philosophical theology, we know it isn’t going to end well.

No, I don’t think this will end well at all for the pedophile-defending, accused-rapist-befriending Lawrence Krauss. Remember that I said he is a tenured professor at Arizona State University, which means it is impossible that Lawrence Krauss could be fired. Yet seemingly impossible things have happened before, although only ignorant and superstitious people believe in miracles:

By what standard do atheists judge right and wrong? Other than religion, is there anything that an atheist is obliged to regard as evil and, if so, why? To say that science and reason can be our only guide in every circumstance — that we should be as coldly logical asStar Trek’s fictional Spock — may seem an obvious enough answer, but at times the evidence is ambiguous and not every situation can be easily reduced to a clear syllogism. This is not a moot discussion, nor is it a matter of mere hypothetical speculation what science says about sexual equality, at least not for Benjamin Radford.
Radford is the deputy editor of Skeptical Inquirer magazine and was until quite recently among the most respected members of the so-called “skeptic community,” who esteem science above everything and regard all religious belief as ignorant superstition. So there is no one to whom Radford may pray for deliverance, now that he finds himself accused of sexual harassment, condemned as a “predator” and exposed to the wrath of feminists.
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, but atheists don’t believe in Hell and, although some scientists have suggested an anthropological utility for mercy, feminists don’t seem prone to heed such talk when a man stands accused of doing what Radford allegedly did. . . .

Please read the whole thing at The American Spectator.

Did I mention that Jen McCreight has solicited the aid of Popehat?

“Grace be with thee. Amen.”

 

 

UPDATE: The floodgates having opened, there are more and more people describing “creepy” incidents with Professor Krauss, such as a 2011 cruise sponsored by the Center for Inquiry (CFI) during which Professor Krauss reportedly brought along a female companion. Professor Krauss “was a bit rambunctious the whole time” and at some point, “propositioned” a woman on the cruise “to join him and his guest in his hotel room, an offer the woman turned down.” And if you’ll read down in the comments here, at #244 you’ll find P.Z. Myers saying: “I have now heard directly from someone I trust that she was sexually assaulted by Lawrence Krauss. Shit.”

These are not accusations I am making. The accusers are not intolerant right-wing Christians, but rather Professor Krauss’s philosophical allies in the atheist/scientific/skeptic movement.

 

Bill Nye the Science Guy: Harasser?

Posted on Comments

In the wake of the atheist sex scandal we reported Tuesday, someone in the “skeptic” community (as these soi-dissant rationalists refer to themselves) created a Tumblr blog called “More Will Be Named” that expanded the list of accused harassers beyond Skeptical Inquirer deputy editor Ben Radford. Before that Tumblr was deleted (for reasons unknown) former children’s TV host Bill Nye “The Science Guy” was among those named, as referenced in Tweets here, here and here.

Is there anything to such accusations? I have no idea, but if it seems wildly improbable that Nye could be suspected of such behavior, remember that no one outside the “skeptic” community (and relatively few insiders), had any reason to suspect Ben Radford before Karen Stoltznow went public with her account this week.

Now more women are coming forward to testify that the “hostile climate” for women in the atheist movement is not limited to the Radford situation. Atheist podcaster Stephanie Svan described a case involving Jim Frenkel, while Carrie Poppy describes her problems at the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF), which hosted the conference where Stoltznow claims she was sexually assaulted by Radford.

The most interesting aspect of Carrie Poppy’s accusation is the finger she points at JREF President D.J. Grothe, whom she denounces for “constant duplicity, dishonesty, and manipulation.” See if you don’t notice something in this sentence:

I was assured on more than one occasion by James Randi that D.J. Grothe would be fired (I hear Randi denies this now, though he repeatedly promised it to another staff member as well, and that staff member and I represented the entirety of JREF full-time staff other than D.J. and his husband, Thomas), but after several months of waiting and being asked to wait, it became clear that D.J. was not going to be fired.

WHOA! D.J. Grothe is a gay man and an atheist and (according to Carrie Poppy) complicit in this kind of foul misogyny?

Damn, I’m gonna need more popcorn. Meanwhile, feminist maniac Amanda Marcotte has weighed in to say that the answer to this problem — you guessed, didn’t you? — is more feminism.

OK, forget the popcorn. One of you ladies fix me a sammich.